OooShiny:MechaPyx: I can appreciate wanting to err on the side of caution and protecting the life of an unborn child but what they're doing is asinine. The fetus is not viable. It's time to let it go.

* The 14-week fetus was already unviable two months ago, on November 28th, when the mother died and her brain ceased all activity. She was never in a coma. She was never vegetative. She was DEAD.

* This was and is NOT 'caution.' This is morbid madness endorsed and enforced by a fundamentalist ideological machine that cannot think or empathize with human reality.

In a case like this I think they have a duty to determine whether or not the fetus is viable before turning off life support(despite the DNR). If the fetus is healthy and there's a chance it can be brought to term then you try and save it. That's the ethical thing to do. BUT, once you've done due diligence and determined the fetus is not viable you terminate life support. That too is the ethical thing to do. In this case the fetus is nowhere near being brought to term and it's brain has turned to goo. It seems pretty clear to me it's time to pull the plug. What they're doing now is asinine and unethical and whoever made the decision to keep her on life support is criminally negligent at this point.

I really appreciate people wanting to make sure they do everything they can to save a life and not give up prematurely but there is nothing left to save here. Those two lives are gone and no amount of personal angst or gnashing of teeth are going to bring them back. I think some are arguing out of a genuine concern and respect for life but I think those who made this decision have shown incredibly poor judgment. I'm not sure what motivates them. Possibly they are trying to avoid legal troubles by being able to say they did everything they could to save those lives but they've crossed a line at this point. I think they realize that but they're unwilling to admit their mistake. Or maybe they really are selfish individuals who care more about scoring ideological and political points than anything else. What I do know is they need to stop.

1) Brain dead is dead. She is, and has been, dead2) A DNR or lack thereof is irrelevant, because 2a) Texas overrides them by law when a woman is pregnant. Even early first trimester. However, the law does not legally apply here because she is not on life sustaining treatment as the law states. She is dead 2b) It wouldn't matter here anyway because she is dead. Resuscitation is impossible3) She is on organ support. NOT life support. There is no life to support4) This has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ABORTION. No one is aborting or suggesting aborting anything

And now for my opinion: I don't care if the condition of the fetus is unknown. To incubate the living inside of the dead is an abomination against nature. It is sick, twisted, and a really f*cking bad idea. And F*CK anyone arguing in support of this sick devilry on religious grounds. There is nothing anywhere, in any religious teachings, texts, or dogma to suggest that incubating the living inside of the dead is God's will. Nothing. It. Is. Wrong.

"We are appalled by Judge Wallace's order to terminate life support for Marlise Munoz and her baby," said Troy Newman of Operation Rescue in a statement following the ruling. "The order is the equivalent of signing a death sentence for Baby Munoz. We utterly reject the false notion that Marlise's body is a rotting corpse, which is impossible since a decaying body cannot support the life of a baby for weeks, as Marlise has."

Then read the comments.

That's some down right farking crazy scary fark.

People with absolutely No background in medicine and no interest or intent to learn, believing that being on complete life support, mechanical breathing machines, cardiac stimulation and massive doses of drugs to prevent necrosis, which are harmful to what's left of the fetus constitutes being "alive".

I didn't think it could get worse than forcing a minor child to carry what would become the child of her rapist to term.

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque:Gergesa: The woman is on life support and deserves death with dignity. Going against the wishes of her, her family and her husband is one problem. Another is the people trying to justify this bizarre medical experimentation of zombie birth.

I'm morbidly curious about the legal implications of this fetus if it's brought to term and "birthed." Can a dead woman be listed as a mother on a birth certificate in Texas? Would the baby be a citizen, being born a dead woman? I'm really confused thinking of the repercussions of incubating fetuses in the bodies of dead women.

The baby would be a citizen because it was born in the US; the mother's citizenship and whether she's dead is irrelevant (and I'm sure there are cases where people have been born via C-section from a mother who was dead or dying due to an accident, just much closer to full-term so this ghoulish shiat doesn't happen). Assuming the baby is actually still alive by then, which is highly unlikely.

namegoeshere:A few points, oft repeated but obviously not understood by all:

1) Brain dead is dead. She is, and has been, dead2) A DNR or lack thereof is irrelevant, because 2a) Texas overrides them by law when a woman is pregnant. Even early first trimester. However, the law does not legally apply here because she is not on life sustaining treatment as the law states. She is dead 2b) It wouldn't matter here anyway because she is dead. Resuscitation is impossible3) She is on organ support. NOT life support. There is no life to support4) This has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ABORTION. No one is aborting or suggesting aborting anything

And now for my opinion: I don't care if the condition of the fetus is unknown. To incubate the living inside of the dead is an abomination against nature. It is sick, twisted, and a really f*cking bad idea. And F*CK anyone arguing in support of this sick devilry on religious grounds. There is nothing anywhere, in any religious teachings, texts, or dogma to suggest that incubating the living inside of the dead is God's will. Nothing. It. Is. Wrong.

letrole:Most idiots are either ignorant, or just stupid. You are both. Nevertheless, I find your simplicity engaging.cameroncrazy1984:I must have missed the part where you proved me incorrect. EMTs do not make the decision as to whether to pull a patient off life support. I'm sorry you don't understand simple, basic logic.

This means I have post a whole list of links of EMTs being charged with making a unilateral decision with regards to treatment.

When her kidneys fail, should she receive organ donation ahead of actual living people because fetus?

The husband said: "Her limbs have become so stiff and rigid due to her deteriorating condition that now, when I move her hands, her bones crack, and her legs are nothing more than dead weight." When her steel-hard muscle contractures keep them from strapping her flat to the table for C-section, should staff just break her bones for improved surgical access to her stomach because fetus?

She died at 14 weeks' gestation, nowhere close to viability, let alone close to full-term birth. Her husband and her parents wanted to stop medical intervention after her death to honor her very own wishes. Why is this family not worthy to make such a painful decision without state and religious intervention?

Why are both quality of life and quality of death deemed to NOT be moral imperatives by those who object to this family's deeply personal decision?

Paris1127:hardinparamedic: JasonOfOrillia: This is a horrifying abuse of authority. And an excellent example of the results of letting religious nutters apply their absolutism to the population at large. Hopefully this will backfire on them.

And since the hospital is owned by the county, your tax dollars are paying for it!

And since the Tarrant County DA's office is defending the hospital, taxpayers are paying for the legal bills too. And the eventual (large) settlement against the hospital, DA's office, and county.

Muzzleloader:Lol you assume that this isn't a troll and his sockpuppet? Adorable.

cameroncrazy1984: is no sockpuppet. He's my stalker. He gets a serious hardon when I show up. Constantly jumps up unbidden. The telling sign is the lack of serious substance in his posts. It's almost as though he has a maddening obsession to post something, *anything*, hoping to catch my eye.

I've tried to let him down gently, and I've tried being cruel to be kind. But alas, it seems the way it's going to continue is he's a pesistent pest that I treat with with a certain level of forbearance, like a kid next door with down's who comes running any time you step out into the garden..

cameroncrazy1984:letrole: This means I have post a whole list of links of EMTs being charged with making a unilateral decision with regards to treatment.

My favorite part about all of that is that they are largely conservative EMTs not doing their jobs.

I'll add that since they are all charged with crimes that making unilateral decisions in regards to treatment is not part of their job and as such they do not get to make unilateral decisions in regards to treatment.

letrole:cameroncrazy1984: is no sockpuppet. He's my stalker. He gets a serious hardon when I show up. Constantly jumps up unbidden. The telling sign is the lack of serious substance in his posts. It's almost as though he has a maddening obsession to post something, *anything*, hoping to catch my eye.

Unbidden? Boy, I've been in this thread replying to all kinds of comments since the beginning. Sorry to burst your ego, but it isn't like I just hopped in this thread just because you were in it. Do you dispute that? If so, provide evidence.

Would it be possible for the husband / family to transfer the woman's body to another hospital that would be more amenable to accepting medical information and acting upon it rather than act upon a politico-religious ideology that has dick-all to do with making rational medical decisions?

Kome:Would it be possible for the husband / family to transfer the woman's body to another hospital that would be more amenable to accepting medical information and acting upon it rather than act upon a politico-religious ideology that has dick-all to do with making rational medical decisions?

FormatSlacker: The defense claimed there were abnormalities but there wasn't any indication of what those abnormalities might be.

According to Mr. Munoz's legal council: "even at this early stage, the lower extremities are deformed to the extent that the gender cannot be determined. The fetus suffers from hydrocephalus. It also appears that there are further abnormalities, including a possible heart problem that cannot be specifically determined due to the immobile nature of Mrs. Munoz's deceased body."

The hospital has corroborated those statements, rather than denied them.

letrole:Unbidden? Boy, I've been in this thread replying to all kinds of comments since the beginning. Sorry to burst your ego, but it isn't like I just hopped in this thread just because you were in it. Do you dispute that? If so, provide evidence.

"We are appalled by Judge Wallace's order to terminate life support for Marlise Munoz and her baby," said Troy Newman of Operation Rescue in a statement following the ruling. "The order is the equivalent of signing a death sentence for Baby Munoz. We utterly reject the false notion that Marlise's body is a rotting corpse, which is impossible since a decaying body cannot support the life of a baby for weeks, as Marlise has."

Then read the comments.

Brrrrrrrrrr...! Dang. One woman had the temerity to suggest she would pray for the the wife, the baby AND the father and was attacked in no uncertain terms for being a middle-of-the-road Christian. That's the point where I felt obliged to stop reading.

I am pro-choice. The well-being of a woman, mental, emotional, and physical, supercedes the rights of an unborn fetus. However, in this case, the mother's well-being is irrelevant, as she's no longer living. Therefore, I believe the rights of the living fetus supercede the rights of a dead woman. If there's any chance of a viable infant being born, then, in my opinion, life support should be continued.

I haven't seen the evidence that the fetus isn't viable, though the reports state that the father's attorneys have such. If this is true, then by all means end everything, but if there's any doubt at all, then I believe the fetus should be maintained until it is either born or all doubt in removed.

Hospital cannot into basic pregnancy science. A brain dead woman is no longer transmitting the required signals to pass the required chemicals to the fetus as would occur during the normal gestation of a living woman.

Is this the hospital you want to bring your medical emergencies to now?

Unless there's a really good reason to not leave, I would sincerely hope some patients would decide to take their medical needs elsewhere. This is beyond horrifying. And let there be even one penny of the entire cost fowarded to the family, if that place hasn't shoved a blasphemous lighting bolt up its own ass by then, Emprah will surely strike them down.

"We are appalled by Judge Wallace's order to terminate life support for Marlise Munoz and her baby," said Troy Newman of Operation Rescue in a statement following the ruling. "The order is the equivalent of signing a death sentence for Baby Munoz. We utterly reject the false notion that Marlise's body is a rotting corpse, which is impossible since a decaying body cannot support the life of a baby for weeks, as Marlise has."

Then read the comments.

That's some down right farking crazy scary fark.

People with absolutely No background in medicine and no interest or intent to learn, believing that being on complete life support, mechanical breathing machines, cardiac stimulation and massive doses of drugs to prevent necrosis, which are harmful to what's left of the fetus constitutes being "alive".

I didn't think it could get worse than forcing a minor child to carry what would become the child of her rapist to term.

I am so very wrong. It did.

Pro-life individuals of that nature are psychotic. Unfortunately, many pro-life individuals are of that nature.

Amberleia:I am pro-choice. The well-being of a woman, mental, emotional, and physical, supercedes the rights of an unborn fetus. However, in this case, the mother's well-being is irrelevant, as she's no longer living. Therefore, I believe the rights of the living fetus supercede the rights of a dead woman. If there's any chance of a viable infant being born, then, in my opinion, life support should be continued.

I haven't seen the evidence that the fetus isn't viable, though the reports state that the father's attorneys have such. If this is true, then by all means end everything, but if there's any doubt at all, then I believe the fetus should be maintained until it is either born or all doubt in removed.

I agree. Even, despite the substantial deformities already observed, the fact that the fetus was deprived of oxygen for several minutes, the fact that the fetus has not been properly exposed to hormones due to the death of the hormone regulator in the body and the fact that the fetus has been exposed to numerous damaging anti-necrotic drugs, if the slightest possibility that the fetus can be "born" as a horribly deformed, brain-damaged entity with no consciousness or cognitive ability that exists for a few minutes outside of the womb, then the Munoz family should continue to be subjected to their ongoing emotional torment and the substantial financial burden of medical bills for this unwanted treatment to the corpse of Ms. Munoz.

FormatSlacker:It's funny how when it comes to abortion, a fetus is just a random clump of cells which may be discarded as readily as in any other surgery. But when it's on life support suddenly it becomes a person again, deserving "death with dignity."

It's funny how you seem to think "death with dignity" has anything to do with the fetus in this case, and nothing to do with the former woman who was carrying it.

FormatSlacker:The defense claimed there were abnormalities but there wasn't any indication of what those abnormalities might be.

Ignorance can only take you so far in life. So please stop attempting to spread it to others, okay?

letrole:Here's the evidence. I don't want to talk to you. Go away. You have two options: STFU or QED. Take your pick.cameroncrazy1984:You can always put me on ignore, bud. Nobody's stopping you. I'm sorry you hate having factual evidence provided for you.

If you were Forest Gump, this is where you would say, "but you ain't got no legs, Lt. Dan", and Lt. Dan would say, "yes, I *know* that".

Problem... My republican dad is even saying pull the plug and let them pass.. being libertarian, I would probably offer the poor kid a free lunch with my own money (a true socialist gesture mind you). My opinion is I should not be forced to pay for a kid I never met.

/also love donating for purposes I believe in.//surely I am not alone.

MechaPyx:In a case like this I think they have a duty to determine whether or not the fetus is viable before turning off life support(despite the DNR). If the fetus is healthy and there's a chance it can be brought to term then you try and save it. That's the ethical thing to do.

No, the ethical thing to do would be respecting the person's wishes, and that means not doing anything "despite" a DNR.

TedCruz'sCrazyDad:Paris1127: hardinparamedic: JasonOfOrillia: This is a horrifying abuse of authority. And an excellent example of the results of letting religious nutters apply their absolutism to the population at large. Hopefully this will backfire on them.

And since the hospital is owned by the county, your tax dollars are paying for it!

And since the Tarrant County DA's office is defending the hospital, taxpayers are paying for the legal bills too. And the eventual (large) settlement against the hospital, DA's office, and county.

TV's Vinnie:What are these fundie sickos going to do? Stand around a wheezing ball of twisted flesh after it's born from an artificially-animated corpse and sing "Yes, Jesus loves me" while it gurgles and yowls itself to death?

I just don't see the slightest thing holy about this at all.

Religion that is used to dominate people instead of comfort them shouldn't be a Constitutional right.

They honestly can't comprehend that this won't be a baby in any sense and it'll die in horrible agony. That's why they do this. As I posted in the other thread, if you can't figure this out, you shouldn't be interfering with people's lives--you should be waiting for your brain to grow into an adult one.

Amberleia: I am pro-choice. The well-being of a woman, mental, emotional, and physical, supercedes the rights of an unborn fetus. However, in this case, the mother's well-being is irrelevant, as she's no longer living. Therefore, I believe the rights of the living fetus supercede the rights of a dead woman. If there's any chance of a viable infant being born, then, in my opinion, life support should be continued.

Fetus was 14 weeks' gestation at time of mother's death. Husband decided, after brain activity had ceased, that it was time to let her and her pregnancy go. Had fetus been months closer to viability on November 28th, the husband's decision might have been very different.

Why do the state's 'ethics' and 'rights' supersede those of her husband, her parents and the patient herself as her family says she verbally expressed before death?

Why is it unethical for her loving husband, who's also her medical and legal power of attorney, to make this deeply personal decision without state intervention?

Why is it ethical for the state to force her husband and family to maintain her body and pregnancy against their express written consent?

Why is this husband's thoughtful, reasonable and loving decision codified as a crime by the state?